RiaonH4
07-19 09:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i have H1 (ETA 9035E) which has NAICS code and LCA code .. no ONET code....
My Green card labor ETA 9098 has NAICS (section C-8) same as my H1-B and SOC/O*NET(OES) code (section F-2) and nothing in Section H 10 - B ....
now what isthat i am suppose to match to use AC21. Employer only trannsfer H1B. Nothing is ususally done for 485 application unless RFE comes and we give USCIS a company letter showing job duties are same as previous job .....
what am i missing here cause i am surely missing something .....?????
Please suggest. Also people are mentioning score 100 with ONET code ... what is that and how is that used.
Please please suggest. This is so confusing !!!
-Ria
PS: this is for my husband .. a sucessful ac21 is required so that i can maintain my EAD (Derived)
i have H1 (ETA 9035E) which has NAICS code and LCA code .. no ONET code....
My Green card labor ETA 9098 has NAICS (section C-8) same as my H1-B and SOC/O*NET(OES) code (section F-2) and nothing in Section H 10 - B ....
now what isthat i am suppose to match to use AC21. Employer only trannsfer H1B. Nothing is ususally done for 485 application unless RFE comes and we give USCIS a company letter showing job duties are same as previous job .....
what am i missing here cause i am surely missing something .....?????
Please suggest. Also people are mentioning score 100 with ONET code ... what is that and how is that used.
Please please suggest. This is so confusing !!!
-Ria
PS: this is for my husband .. a sucessful ac21 is required so that i can maintain my EAD (Derived)
wallpaper Mr Strauss-Kahn and his wife
jhaalaa
01-13 01:21 PM
Long 19 page memo - but loud and clear for many scenarios -
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
USCIS posts Q & A:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3d015869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
This memo is an eye opener especially for folks on consulting company assignments and those who are self-sponsored or who want to do their own business. Finding a new H1 sponsor would be extremely difficult as well (AC21 folks beware).
Now getting a new H1 or a transfer or a renewal, may be subject to very stringent scrutiny.
This memo has the potential to throw a lot of small boutique Consulting companies out of business and along with it many of their employees - whether they use H1 or not.
Wish the best for all affected folks.
Pray and hope the GC dream is realized faster for all.
Best Wishes
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2010/H1B%20Employer-Employee%20Memo010810.pdf
USCIS posts Q & A:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=3d015869c9326210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=68439c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1 RCRD
This memo is an eye opener especially for folks on consulting company assignments and those who are self-sponsored or who want to do their own business. Finding a new H1 sponsor would be extremely difficult as well (AC21 folks beware).
Now getting a new H1 or a transfer or a renewal, may be subject to very stringent scrutiny.
This memo has the potential to throw a lot of small boutique Consulting companies out of business and along with it many of their employees - whether they use H1 or not.
Wish the best for all affected folks.
Pray and hope the GC dream is realized faster for all.
Best Wishes
aranya
12-14 03:33 PM
So that interprets to "7% limit for every country" - seems to be "Equality"
Equal yes but also separate and that did not work very well in the past, did it?
Equal yes but also separate and that did not work very well in the past, did it?
2011 is dominique strauss-kahn
a_yaja
07-22 01:17 PM
To a_yaja,
Thanks for your detailed story my friend. This thread is turing into a support group for Amway/Quickstar victims.
How is your experience with your childhood Amway friend. Still friends or just keeping in touch because he has the acess to the Amway database? :P
I have come across quite a few of the Amway/ Quickstart folks. Like most of the people have described here, they usually approach me in Walmart, Meijer, etc. My first experience was in the temple. This dude and his wife went "oh wow! you know so many languages." After talking to the dude, he said that he knew some of my childhood friends and he remembered my face and that we could have possibly played cricket together in our childhood days (this itself should have raised red flags - but I was naive then and didn't think twice). Long story short, we exchanged phone #s and next day he called me and asked me to meet him at his home. He was running an "ecomm business" and was looking for partners. I asked him if he was talking about Amway and he innocently asked me "What is Amway?" I agreed to meet him but something bothered me. I called up another childhood friend who was in Amway and asked him about this dude. Sure enough he was an Amway-ite and already a "Diamond". I was mad and did not go to his house. He called me a couple of times but I never picked up the phone.
We remain good friends and agreed to disagree on Amway. Now our kids have also friends and when they grow up hopefully will continue being "friends from childhood" :-). And ofcourse - he is still a good source of Amway-ites.
Thanks for your detailed story my friend. This thread is turing into a support group for Amway/Quickstar victims.
How is your experience with your childhood Amway friend. Still friends or just keeping in touch because he has the acess to the Amway database? :P
I have come across quite a few of the Amway/ Quickstart folks. Like most of the people have described here, they usually approach me in Walmart, Meijer, etc. My first experience was in the temple. This dude and his wife went "oh wow! you know so many languages." After talking to the dude, he said that he knew some of my childhood friends and he remembered my face and that we could have possibly played cricket together in our childhood days (this itself should have raised red flags - but I was naive then and didn't think twice). Long story short, we exchanged phone #s and next day he called me and asked me to meet him at his home. He was running an "ecomm business" and was looking for partners. I asked him if he was talking about Amway and he innocently asked me "What is Amway?" I agreed to meet him but something bothered me. I called up another childhood friend who was in Amway and asked him about this dude. Sure enough he was an Amway-ite and already a "Diamond". I was mad and did not go to his house. He called me a couple of times but I never picked up the phone.
We remain good friends and agreed to disagree on Amway. Now our kids have also friends and when they grow up hopefully will continue being "friends from childhood" :-). And ofcourse - he is still a good source of Amway-ites.
more...
smuggymba
08-02 03:46 PM
How does one check the comments left along with red and green dots?
I guess PM, correct me guys if I'm wrong
I guess PM, correct me guys if I'm wrong
ksrk
09-15 02:47 AM
Assuming 3k spillover from (EB1/EB4/EB5 to EB2) => EB2 will get 13K visa
EB2 ROW uses 7K (700 India, 700 China, +5k others) - there are 6K visa to allocated by Dec 2009 and 12K by March 2010 which will be given to EB2-India.
BEC LCA applicants in 2005 estimate (EB2 India) = 2000 => 4400
PERM applicants in 2005 (7276 of this 40% are Indian and 60% from EB2 ) -> 1750 LCA
1100 LCA => 3850 GC
Total pending I-485 in 2005 (EB2 India) ~ 8000
This would mean PD will cross 2005 in next 2 quarters. I have pesimetic estimates so it will not surprise me it the dates move more rapidly.
...a question, though, about how the spillover is assigned back to over-subscribed countries (India and China) - does that happen in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (lately in the last month or two) or does it happen each quarter? Looks like your analysis assumes it happens each quarter...
EB2 ROW uses 7K (700 India, 700 China, +5k others) - there are 6K visa to allocated by Dec 2009 and 12K by March 2010 which will be given to EB2-India.
BEC LCA applicants in 2005 estimate (EB2 India) = 2000 => 4400
PERM applicants in 2005 (7276 of this 40% are Indian and 60% from EB2 ) -> 1750 LCA
1100 LCA => 3850 GC
Total pending I-485 in 2005 (EB2 India) ~ 8000
This would mean PD will cross 2005 in next 2 quarters. I have pesimetic estimates so it will not surprise me it the dates move more rapidly.
...a question, though, about how the spillover is assigned back to over-subscribed countries (India and China) - does that happen in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year (lately in the last month or two) or does it happen each quarter? Looks like your analysis assumes it happens each quarter...
more...
paskal
12-14 05:55 PM
it's clear as pointed out above that we peters and pauls here.
iv is not striving to remove country qiota in isolation.
that said, those who benefit will always justify it. it is human.
my personal view remains the same: discriminating between two individuals by country of origin is wrong. period.
thie country recognizes that fact in EVERYTHING, except immigration, and that has a long history of fear and restriction behind it.
i guess until one feels the effects of being on the "wrong side of the fence" it's hard to see this picture.
meanwhile this is going too far and i will close this thread forewith. wake up people - there is barely any difference in EB3 india and ROW...so what's the deal with swamping? and if one country gets more GC numbers...maybe ...horrors...it's because it has more applicants???
those who support this "diversity" crap- you will find your own "quotas" somewhere sometime someday for sure. then please remember that it's ok to take away from you and give others for any chosen reason....
i get the last word. sorry! :-)
iv is not striving to remove country qiota in isolation.
that said, those who benefit will always justify it. it is human.
my personal view remains the same: discriminating between two individuals by country of origin is wrong. period.
thie country recognizes that fact in EVERYTHING, except immigration, and that has a long history of fear and restriction behind it.
i guess until one feels the effects of being on the "wrong side of the fence" it's hard to see this picture.
meanwhile this is going too far and i will close this thread forewith. wake up people - there is barely any difference in EB3 india and ROW...so what's the deal with swamping? and if one country gets more GC numbers...maybe ...horrors...it's because it has more applicants???
those who support this "diversity" crap- you will find your own "quotas" somewhere sometime someday for sure. then please remember that it's ok to take away from you and give others for any chosen reason....
i get the last word. sorry! :-)
2010 Dominique Strauss-Kahn,
Michael chertoff
07-30 09:28 AM
This Ron Gotcher guy does not seem to get it.... he has an agenda, I dont buy his logic. It is unlikely that ~ 50 cases at consular posts are enough motivation to move dates forward by two years.
It took roughly one year for EB2-I dates to advance beyond April04 from the time it first got to April 04.
We know 2005 is a lean year.
It is likely that it will take almost a year before EB2-I dates advance beyond June06.
Those with PD < June06 that do not get a GC by Sep08 can expect to get it by Sep 09. Until then we will see some short term swings between 2003 and 2006.
When people with PD June 15 2006 will get the greencard???
It took roughly one year for EB2-I dates to advance beyond April04 from the time it first got to April 04.
We know 2005 is a lean year.
It is likely that it will take almost a year before EB2-I dates advance beyond June06.
Those with PD < June06 that do not get a GC by Sep08 can expect to get it by Sep 09. Until then we will see some short term swings between 2003 and 2006.
When people with PD June 15 2006 will get the greencard???
more...
ramus
07-03 04:23 PM
Thanks...
Hi all,
Regarding the recent goofup by USCIS, please rate this story
http://digg.com/politics/No_July_4th_Celebrations_for_Highly_Skilled_Future _Americans/who
if this receives more than 100 users rating for the story in next 5-10 hours - it would be displayed on the first page. Digg.com is read by hundreds of thousands of web users and there is high chance of getting picked by main stream media.
Note that you ll have to signup as digg.com member to rate it - it ll just take 30 secs of your time.
Sorry I wasn't able to submit the official IV prlog.com url since it is not accepted by Digg.
thanks.
Hi all,
Regarding the recent goofup by USCIS, please rate this story
http://digg.com/politics/No_July_4th_Celebrations_for_Highly_Skilled_Future _Americans/who
if this receives more than 100 users rating for the story in next 5-10 hours - it would be displayed on the first page. Digg.com is read by hundreds of thousands of web users and there is high chance of getting picked by main stream media.
Note that you ll have to signup as digg.com member to rate it - it ll just take 30 secs of your time.
Sorry I wasn't able to submit the official IV prlog.com url since it is not accepted by Digg.
thanks.
hair Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Googler
02-18 03:17 PM
Neither of us are lawyers and I wouldn't even bother reading what you wrote. All I can say is, why don't you ask your immigration lawyer about this Class Action. Let's see what he says.
This is great -- you won't consider facts and evidence, including the fact that judges themselves are recommending class action in similar cases! Forget about considering, you won't even read a post with a different pov... (makes me wonder why you bother with the forum if even reading a post is too much work.)
My own attorney, as a matter of fact, thinks that a class action makes sense in this instance.
As lazycis points out, his attorney didn't want him to even file an individual WOM, and it turned out his attorney was absolutely wrong. The mass of evidence in WOM cases and the current Mocanu decision shows that lazycis's attorney (and other let us not disturb/question the status quo attorneys) were wrong. I should remind people again that most of our attorneys are not litigators, they are paper filers -- this dichotomy is true in most other practice areas of the law (eg: antitrust) as well.
The reason I care about this is -- if people/attorneys make up their minds without considering the facts/legal precedents, then they will not spot and/or work to figure out the legal arguments that will win the day -- the legal arguments eventually used in the WOM cases did not sprout out on day one, it was an iterative process.
This is great -- you won't consider facts and evidence, including the fact that judges themselves are recommending class action in similar cases! Forget about considering, you won't even read a post with a different pov... (makes me wonder why you bother with the forum if even reading a post is too much work.)
My own attorney, as a matter of fact, thinks that a class action makes sense in this instance.
As lazycis points out, his attorney didn't want him to even file an individual WOM, and it turned out his attorney was absolutely wrong. The mass of evidence in WOM cases and the current Mocanu decision shows that lazycis's attorney (and other let us not disturb/question the status quo attorneys) were wrong. I should remind people again that most of our attorneys are not litigators, they are paper filers -- this dichotomy is true in most other practice areas of the law (eg: antitrust) as well.
The reason I care about this is -- if people/attorneys make up their minds without considering the facts/legal precedents, then they will not spot and/or work to figure out the legal arguments that will win the day -- the legal arguments eventually used in the WOM cases did not sprout out on day one, it was an iterative process.
more...
thakurrajiv
09-24 08:27 AM
Well, here�s some more stat : Base on GC allocation of FY 2008 (http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY08-AR-TableV(Part2).pdf ),
EB1 India got 5,327 visas , EB2 India got 14,818 and EB3 India got 3,576 even though the quota was 2,803 for each preference.
As an example, I-485 pending for EB2 and EB3 India before 2006 are 17,835 and 46,334 respectively. Everything else being equal, you can take a guess how long it would take based how old the report was. Even if the report is from yesterday to be pessimistic and there are nuances, it gives some approximation unless the interpretation is totally wrong.
Thanks for posting this. Lets see how visa allocation worked for 2009. Based on 2008, things do not look as rosy. Only 14.8K visas in EB2-I. If perm speed improves then the spill overs will also reduce.
Surprising South Korea is not in oversubscribed countries. It received 7.2K EB2 visas.
I thought South Korea should have been retrogressed. Well when do we expect fairness from USCIS ? They seem to follow class system : ROW, china, other over-subscribed, India in this order !!
EB1 India got 5,327 visas , EB2 India got 14,818 and EB3 India got 3,576 even though the quota was 2,803 for each preference.
As an example, I-485 pending for EB2 and EB3 India before 2006 are 17,835 and 46,334 respectively. Everything else being equal, you can take a guess how long it would take based how old the report was. Even if the report is from yesterday to be pessimistic and there are nuances, it gives some approximation unless the interpretation is totally wrong.
Thanks for posting this. Lets see how visa allocation worked for 2009. Based on 2008, things do not look as rosy. Only 14.8K visas in EB2-I. If perm speed improves then the spill overs will also reduce.
Surprising South Korea is not in oversubscribed countries. It received 7.2K EB2 visas.
I thought South Korea should have been retrogressed. Well when do we expect fairness from USCIS ? They seem to follow class system : ROW, china, other over-subscribed, India in this order !!
hot Strauss-Kahn victim of
mrdelhiite
07-08 08:54 PM
My question: I came to us on F1 Visa. I do not have my last name in my passport. Yes it is true ..stupid passport department missed it as they write names with hand ... passport was made when I was in high school…9th grade to be precise. I never got it corrected and came to us …visa was issued to me using FNU firstname format. When I applied for I-20 SSN, and everything in US after that I added my last name (my actual family name which got missed in passport) as us system does not allow blank last name. Note that my passport last page correctly shows my fathers and mothers last name which I have added on all my us documents like SSN, DL, … now I have been in us from past 5 years with all ( and I actually mean all) my us docs like H1, SSN, I-20, License, 495 application etc in firstname lastname format. ….. the only 2 things which are not in my first name last name format is
1) visa which is FNU Firstname ( FNU = First name used)
2) My passport which has just my first name and no last name
one of my good friend got a 485 query as his first, middle and last name are mixed up with respect to his passport and 485 application. Which I feel is a much simpler case as compared to mine.
Now my question is should I go ahead and change my name in my passport which is nothing but add my last name and get a new passport preemptively…or I should wait for USCIS decision .. Usually RFE is given 30 – 40 days to reply and I don’t think I will have time to get my passport fixed if and when RFE comes on my 485 .. the only issue I have with preemptive fixing name is sometime it is just better not to add complication to a case when it comes to USCIS …. A lawyer’s opinion is much needed and appreciated.
Thanks for your help
-M
PS: my priority is Feb 2007 EB3
1) visa which is FNU Firstname ( FNU = First name used)
2) My passport which has just my first name and no last name
one of my good friend got a 485 query as his first, middle and last name are mixed up with respect to his passport and 485 application. Which I feel is a much simpler case as compared to mine.
Now my question is should I go ahead and change my name in my passport which is nothing but add my last name and get a new passport preemptively…or I should wait for USCIS decision .. Usually RFE is given 30 – 40 days to reply and I don’t think I will have time to get my passport fixed if and when RFE comes on my 485 .. the only issue I have with preemptive fixing name is sometime it is just better not to add complication to a case when it comes to USCIS …. A lawyer’s opinion is much needed and appreciated.
Thanks for your help
-M
PS: my priority is Feb 2007 EB3
more...
house Dominique Strauss-Kahn has
eb2_mumbai
09-15 08:21 AM
Dude, we need to take into account the thousands of EB3 I -> EB2 I conversions :(
Its not as easy as you make it sound. If a person starts today for a new EB2 labor it will take least 1.5 years to get new I 140 approved. This is without any RFE at either stage. Considering today's environment where even simple H1 transfer has become a challenge it takes a really brave person to be playing with fire. Most consulting companies are not enthusiasitc about filing labors and fulltime companies have already said that they are getting too many responses to job advertisement so labor cannot be filed.
Add to that it takes least $7000 to file both labor and 140 in terms of expenses.
Its not as easy as you make it sound. If a person starts today for a new EB2 labor it will take least 1.5 years to get new I 140 approved. This is without any RFE at either stage. Considering today's environment where even simple H1 transfer has become a challenge it takes a really brave person to be playing with fire. Most consulting companies are not enthusiasitc about filing labors and fulltime companies have already said that they are getting too many responses to job advertisement so labor cannot be filed.
Add to that it takes least $7000 to file both labor and 140 in terms of expenses.
tattoo Dominique Strauss-Kahn in
HopeSprings
09-24 01:41 PM
The calculation done by Bharatpremi seems to have flawed while calculating spill-over. Spill-over is first by preference and then by country. That is how till VB of August 2009, you see ROW EB1/2 was current and ROW EB3 was U and EB2I was in 2003.
Now, considering spill-over by preference first, the following could be a conservative analysis:
I am trying to see if EB2I can cross Dec 2006 by end of FY2010. So, we will consider only those cases that might be placed before EB2I PD as Dec 2006.
Consider all the pending EB(1+2+4+5) cases reported so far for ROW, China, Mexico and Phil and add it to pending EB(1+2+4+5) cases for India till end of 2006. The number is around 68000.
Assumption (the numbers for FY 2010 for cases that might be placed before an EB2I case with PD Dec 2006) -
- All EB4/5 cases till end of 2010 FY - 2000
- ROW, Mexico, Phil EB1/2 - 8000
- EB1 I/C - 1000
- The new cases from EB2C (PD Sep 2009 onwards) will not be placed before EB2I PD Dec 2006
Assuming cases cleared in the month of September - 4000 (around 7000 are eligible based on the cut-off date).
Total visa numbers required to clear off EB2 till Dec 2006 = 68000+2000+8000+1000-4000 = 75000
Visa numbers available for AOS for EB (1+2+4+5) in FY 2010:
Assuming 15% go to CP.
Total number for AOS = 119000
EB1 (28.6%) - 34034
EB2 (28.6%) - 34034
EB4 (7%) - 8330
EB5 (7%) - 8330
Total Visa numbers available for AOS for EB (1+2+4+5): 34034+34034+8330+8330 = 84728
So, total number needed to move EB2I past Dec 2006 is 75000. Total available for this cause is around 84000. If USCIS uses all the available visas, spills over only during last quarter and maintains Preference-first spillover policy, I think the visa dates will move well ahead of Dec 2006 by end of FY 2010, most likely in the following way:
Oct 2009 - Dec 2009: Jan/Feb 2005
Jan 2010 - June 2010: Mar/Apr 2005
Jul 2010 - Sep 2010: Feb/Apr 2007
Now, considering spill-over by preference first, the following could be a conservative analysis:
I am trying to see if EB2I can cross Dec 2006 by end of FY2010. So, we will consider only those cases that might be placed before EB2I PD as Dec 2006.
Consider all the pending EB(1+2+4+5) cases reported so far for ROW, China, Mexico and Phil and add it to pending EB(1+2+4+5) cases for India till end of 2006. The number is around 68000.
Assumption (the numbers for FY 2010 for cases that might be placed before an EB2I case with PD Dec 2006) -
- All EB4/5 cases till end of 2010 FY - 2000
- ROW, Mexico, Phil EB1/2 - 8000
- EB1 I/C - 1000
- The new cases from EB2C (PD Sep 2009 onwards) will not be placed before EB2I PD Dec 2006
Assuming cases cleared in the month of September - 4000 (around 7000 are eligible based on the cut-off date).
Total visa numbers required to clear off EB2 till Dec 2006 = 68000+2000+8000+1000-4000 = 75000
Visa numbers available for AOS for EB (1+2+4+5) in FY 2010:
Assuming 15% go to CP.
Total number for AOS = 119000
EB1 (28.6%) - 34034
EB2 (28.6%) - 34034
EB4 (7%) - 8330
EB5 (7%) - 8330
Total Visa numbers available for AOS for EB (1+2+4+5): 34034+34034+8330+8330 = 84728
So, total number needed to move EB2I past Dec 2006 is 75000. Total available for this cause is around 84000. If USCIS uses all the available visas, spills over only during last quarter and maintains Preference-first spillover policy, I think the visa dates will move well ahead of Dec 2006 by end of FY 2010, most likely in the following way:
Oct 2009 - Dec 2009: Jan/Feb 2005
Jan 2010 - June 2010: Mar/Apr 2005
Jul 2010 - Sep 2010: Feb/Apr 2007
more...
pictures Strauss-Kahn was charged on
syzygy
09-23 02:28 AM
I have sent close to 10 emails putting subject
"Proposal to alleviate current US economic crisis"
I hope I am doing right..
"Proposal to alleviate current US economic crisis"
I hope I am doing right..
dresses Strauss-Kahn was once touted
smari
03-29 05:05 PM
H1-B transfer petition pending. Could I enter Canada for PR and comeback to US with old H1-B (not stamped) and receipt notice for transfer petition. Any suggestions?
more...
makeup Dominique Strauss-Kahn
lazycis
02-18 02:35 AM
A good site dedicated to class actions
http://www.classactionlitigation.com
These are particularly interesting:
http://www.classactionlitigation.com/fcapmanual/chapter2.html
http://www.classactionlitigation.com/faq.html#q7
http://www.classactionlitigation.com
These are particularly interesting:
http://www.classactionlitigation.com/fcapmanual/chapter2.html
http://www.classactionlitigation.com/faq.html#q7
girlfriend Dominique Strauss-Kahn maid
mundada
09-23 11:05 AM
Finally a great idea that the Congress can swallow without appearing being pro-immigration.
hairstyles Dominique Strauss-Kahn#39;s
i-luv-tofu
07-27 12:40 PM
I am extremely interested in this business. Can somebody please refer me, I am in LA?
jonty_11
06-28 12:33 PM
"expecting retrogresson ....in first wk of July... " ??
I thought logiclife already clarified that can not and will not happen!!
Thats why this thread is called " Rumour is that"
I thought logiclife already clarified that can not and will not happen!!
Thats why this thread is called " Rumour is that"
vdlrao
07-21 05:08 PM
For 2007 we had an availability of 226,000 Family Based Visas. But the issued visas in 2007 in Family Based are 194,900 visas. That means there are 226,000 MINUS 194,900 = 31100. These 31,100
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21) had recaptured 130,107 visas.
Out of that 94,000 were used in 2005.
7,312 were used in 2007.
So dont know when the available 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 will be used again.
The unused family based visas of 2007 are 31,100 , which are going to be added for Employement Based Visas of 2008. So the total Employment based visas for 2008 are 140,000 + 31,100 = 171,100.
Theses 171,100 EB Visas of 2008 will be split like, asuming USCIS is not using the availble 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 below.
(If USCIS decides to use some or all of 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21, then the available Employment Based VISAS of 2008 increases accordingly. )
28.6 percent each EB1, EB2 and EB3. 48934 VISAS for Each Category.
And 7.1 percent each EB4 and EB5. 12148 VISAS for the last two EB categories.
So in 2008 the total Visas for EB1 and EB2 are 48934 + 48934 = 97868 plus unused EB4 and EB5 visas of 2008.
The total EB5 Visas usage never crossed 824 in the past 10 years(Average Usage is 376/year).
So there would be 11148 visas available for EB1 from EB5 (assuming 1,000 visas are used in EB5 which is highly impossible)
The unused EB4 Visas may be couple of thousand or null, based on the past 10 years EB4 usage (7,223 is the average usage)
Assume there are only 2,000 EB4 VISAS unused in 2008 (defenitely it would be more unused).
So IN THE WORST CASE the total EB1 and EB2 Visas for 2008 are
48934 + 48934 + 11,148 + 2,000 = 111,016
IN THE BEST CASE, ASSUMING USCIS USES ALL 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 FOR 2008 AND THERE WOULD BE 5,000 UNUSED EB4 VISAS, THE TOTAL EB1 AND EB2 VISAS FOR 2008 ARE GOING TO BE 111,016 +3,000(EB4)+ 2*(28,795/3) = 111,016 +3,000+19196 = 133,212
unused Family Based Visas have been made available for 2008 Employment Based Visas of 140,000. And USCIS has 28,795 unused VISAS of American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21).
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000 (AC21) had recaptured 130,107 visas.
Out of that 94,000 were used in 2005.
7,312 were used in 2007.
So dont know when the available 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 will be used again.
The unused family based visas of 2007 are 31,100 , which are going to be added for Employement Based Visas of 2008. So the total Employment based visas for 2008 are 140,000 + 31,100 = 171,100.
Theses 171,100 EB Visas of 2008 will be split like, asuming USCIS is not using the availble 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 below.
(If USCIS decides to use some or all of 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21, then the available Employment Based VISAS of 2008 increases accordingly. )
28.6 percent each EB1, EB2 and EB3. 48934 VISAS for Each Category.
And 7.1 percent each EB4 and EB5. 12148 VISAS for the last two EB categories.
So in 2008 the total Visas for EB1 and EB2 are 48934 + 48934 = 97868 plus unused EB4 and EB5 visas of 2008.
The total EB5 Visas usage never crossed 824 in the past 10 years(Average Usage is 376/year).
So there would be 11148 visas available for EB1 from EB5 (assuming 1,000 visas are used in EB5 which is highly impossible)
The unused EB4 Visas may be couple of thousand or null, based on the past 10 years EB4 usage (7,223 is the average usage)
Assume there are only 2,000 EB4 VISAS unused in 2008 (defenitely it would be more unused).
So IN THE WORST CASE the total EB1 and EB2 Visas for 2008 are
48934 + 48934 + 11,148 + 2,000 = 111,016
IN THE BEST CASE, ASSUMING USCIS USES ALL 28,795 unused VISAS of AC21 FOR 2008 AND THERE WOULD BE 5,000 UNUSED EB4 VISAS, THE TOTAL EB1 AND EB2 VISAS FOR 2008 ARE GOING TO BE 111,016 +3,000(EB4)+ 2*(28,795/3) = 111,016 +3,000+19196 = 133,212
No comments:
Post a Comment